Italian adoption case III

[Juliet123456]

The last thread says all I need to know about those in the system. It also the most legally dangerous thread I have ever seen on mumsnet. I hope someone has been through the posts for libel risk. It also entirely one sided and biased and makes me laugh.

The defensiveness of those involved in this area will hopefully disappear once we have the openness that JH and indeed many others are seeking and obtaining as the judges increasingly accept that it helps everyone to understand what are very difficult decisions - parents, children and lawyers and social workers and expert witnesses in this field.

It will continue to be important always to get to the facts and where possible publish the facts. I continue to believe that almost any of us could have our children removed if the state set its mind to that. If publishing more decisions and giving rights to parents and those involved and the children to write what they like on twitter, facebook and the like and to let parents and children even when separated communicate and talk about any issues they choose will help then let us hope the law continues down that course.

I think I should make it clear at the start of this post that I am a lawyer and, while I do not work in child protection, I have had some involvement in civil cases arising out of child protection issues (where there have been allegations of negligence against medical professionals who have decided that a child is at risk) and in best interest cases (where we have represented a family opposing the hospital's decision).

So I am very much on the individual's side in this, rather that the 'shadowy' social workers', but I simply do not recognise this conspiracy that people are suggesting is commonplace. What I have seen is a degree of paranoia (occasionally) by professionals about child welfare decisions, and even a degree of lazy thinking (Roy Meadows springs to mind) and I have been concerned by how difficult it can be to persuade the system that a child is safe once a decision that they are not has been made, particularly when that involves a reluctance to do further medical tests which would exculpate the parents. But I have seen no evidence whatsoever that there is any kind of target, or even desire, to take well cared for chidren away from parents who are looking after them appropriately.

It is certainly the case that children are sometimes removed inappropriately. I assisted in a case involving 3 families which went all the way to the ECHR before we won recognition for the fact that they had had their children wrongly removed had led to a loss of their right to family life. Our case involved a fracture in a child who ultimately turned out to have brittle bone disease. From memory, the other 2 involved a child whose skin disease led to a diagnosis of sexual abuse, and a child with significant allergies whose mother was accused of having Munchausen's by proxy.

But these are mistakes, and professionals do make mistakes. I'd be out of a job if they didn't. It's not evidence of a national conspiracy to take children from caring parents and have them adopted just for the hell of it. I can't even begin to think what the point would be of having such a policy. It makes no sense.

I have read the edited sections of advice from Ian Joseph at the start of this thread. I'd usually be wary of commenting without knowing the context in which such advice had been given, but some of it is just plainly, and quite terrifyingly wrong.

JH: My answer is quite clear. The objective is to increase adoptions from care. Hence taking more babies is a valid mechanism if that increases the numbers of adoptions. It is clear that adoptions of children at younger ages are subject to fewer disruptions. Hence if the objective is increasing adoption numbers rather than protection children from child abuse then best to get the babies.

I take it you must be aware of the massive logic gap in that statement. The objective is to increase adoptions from care - i.e. the proportion of children already in care for good reasons. It is not to increase the overall numbers. The fact that the number of adoptions will increase if more children are taken into care is not in any way, shape or form evidence that councils are incentivised to take more children into care. Where is the evidence? Statistics are not evidence of this particular assertion.

By the way, have you ever done a cost/benefit analysis of this allegation? You would need to set the alleged financial benefit accruing to each individual council for each adoption against the costs of the initial care proceedings, foster care, and the ultimate adoption proceedings. That would be a basic investigation for you to make, so what was the outcome?

Nenny - quite. JH is not accountable for what IJ says or does. IJ is entitled to say and do whatever he wants as long as he doesn't break the law - I have wondered if he is coming close to that, but that's another topic.

BUT JH clearly links to IJ from his website and appears on others with IJ. IJ constantly references him and indeed turned up on the Carl Gardner blog post to offer his support.

Surely JH would wish to make it absolutely clear that he in no way would ever endorse advice not to protect children from sexual abuse within the family.

And the fact that he will not, and has refused over many years, leads to the inescapable conclusion that he does in fact endorse what IJ says.

JH: I get the continuation of an inane rant from the assorted Family Lawyers and Social Workers.

Just so we're clear, I'm neither a family lawyer nor a social worker. Since my posts therefore apparently do not constitute inane rants, perhaps you could respond properly to them.

If Ian Josephs was just a nobody of no consequence who just sits at home on the Internet all day then I would just shrug my shoulders and move on, because there's no point getting upset at that

The problem is not solely that he holds these views, it's that he actually communicates with and advises a good number of parents whose children are in care or adopted or are worried about social services intervention, that he speaks at 'forced adoption conferences' in the UK (along with JH and CB I believe) and what he says does have an impact on sometimes very vulnerable people

THAT'S why I wind up on a mini thread crusade against him rather than just writing him off. Given how involved he is with real cases, I thinks it's silly not to warn people away from him

My concern is only because I DON'T want families to wind up being split up because the parents read IJ's advice and do something stupid which results in building a good case against them. The fact that he has a REAL impact on these families is what frightens me, because I am genuinely pro-family preservation when it is possible and will not harm the children. Ian Josephs advice (for instance not to leave a violent partner if SS advise you to) could result in terrible consequences for a real family

Which leads to my direct question to John - have you ever directed families involved with SS to Ian Josephs and if you have, did you tell them to ignore any of his advice to not co-operate and not report abusers to Police etc?

I repeat, if IJ did nothing and had no impact, I really would just ignore him and not care

I'm not a lawyer or a social worker either. Just someone who expects people (particularly elected members of the government) to provide evidence for their assertions, and not to give tacit support to a man who advocates illegal and dangerous courses of action.

Can someone pls explain how this happened to an Italian citizen and why her family was not contacted?

FFs Italy is very close to the uk and she was on a training course???.

I really think if you cared about vulnerable families and family preservation and you came across a vulnerable mother who wanted to know about 'forced adoption' you would be morally obliged to warn her NOT to contact Ian Josephs

You want to know how IJ impacts upon people?

I copied and pasted this directly from netmums, where within seconds I also found posts advising families to contact Ian. Netmums is a big site with many readers, some of whom, as on MN, are very vulnerable and involved with social services. It's terifying that they are being told to contact him

SS got involved with me for legitimate reasons-I am a bipolar sufferer and recovered drug addict/alcoholic

I was terrified initially-there are many SS bashing threads on here, not to mention websites such as fassit and forced adoption

I actually spoke to Ian Josephs from forced adoption about my fears-he made things 10 times worse by telling me they just wanted to adopt my baby and that I probably did not have bipolar-it was just an SS conspiracy to get my child

For the record I was diagnosed with bipolar 12 years ago and 30ish psychiatrists and 2 sectionings later the medical profession are unanimous that I have the condition

As you say it is intrusive and stressful but if you do what they say and show you love your child they go away

I have never met a SW who did not seem genuinely motivated about my son's welfare

That is bloody scary. That poor woman needed proper advice and support, not to be told by a lunatic that her diagnosis of Bipolar was false and that everyone was out to get her and steal her baby

wetaugust: The way that posters are baying hysterically on this thread does not encourage people to see things their way - quite the reverse.

Then you can sit back and watch them whip themselves into a self-congratulatory fury of abuse

I'm quite bemused that someone using language like this accuses others of baying hysterically. It really seems to tip over the edge into a degree of hysteria of its own: there appears to be a desperation to try to stop people from showing JH up for what he is. Why on earth is that? Yes, we all know that he's not going to admit to his views about IJ, nor is he going to admit that he has no evidence for his assertions, or even that what he said at the outset of this particular case was a tissue of, shall we say, massive economies with the facts. But the more he does so, the more he digs himself into a deep, deep hole and shows up his accusations for what they are. And we can all hope that, in the end, this will save just a few parents and children from being led dangerously astray. That may be a false hope, but why do you object to it so strongly?

crunchy - it happened to an Italian citizen in the same way it would have happened to anyone else And I would guess in the same way sectioning and losing care of her children happened to her in Italy.

Can someone pls explain how this happened to an Italian citizen and why her family was not contacted?

Yes, I think I can have a stab at explaining for you

As an Italian citizen, firstly she has a legal right to be in this country and no one can make her leave

Once she became seriously ill, it would have become impossible to send her back to Italy even with her consent, because she could not safely be taken there - no airline will carry someone who is having a psychotic episode and might be a danger to themselves and others on the flight, and any car journey would be neglectful and unsafe

Given her serious condition, she had to be cared for in England until she was well enough to go home (only with her consent of course as the UK has no legal right to force her to as she is an EU citizen)

Once the baby was born, the UK have a responsiblity to care for it and so took the baby into care

At that point, the family actually were contacted by social services. There has never been any indication that the close family want to care for this baby

The only 'family' interested are not actually related to this baby at all, and don't live in Italy. The Italian courts themselves refused to make an order to return baby to Italy and are not persuing her return. I can only suppose they don't want the burden of caring for this baby

So that means the baby stays in England and social services have to consider whether the mother will be able to care for her. After many months it has been decided that the mother will not be able to give her what she needs without risk of significant harm, so the baby will be adopted. Because the Italian close family, having been liased with, aren't persuing caring for the baby, she will be adopted by a family here instead

crunchy - you have come to the thread rather late, but this blog post might explain the actual facts in a useful way.

Key points: pregnant woman with long history of serious mental illness is in the the UK, has stopped taking her medication, has major relapse and is sectioned; she has two previous children, born by c-section, which have been removed from her care in Italy because she has not been able to look after them due to her mental health; five weeks after she is sectioned, she is still seriously mentally ill and therefore not legally competent to consent or oppose a c-section, which given her past history of c-sections and her mental state is what doctors feel is the safest option; she is not competent to care for the baby after she is born, so the child is taken into care. Her family were contacted, but were not able/willing to take on the care of the baby.

Thank you expat! How awful!

Thank you all - how sad though and how sad the father is not around and that her wider family can not bring up the baby.

Sad all round crunchy. I believe the father is in Italy illegally so wasn't able to come to the UK (I have no idea if he wanted to though).

Nenny - do stop the silly 'you're either with us or against us' nonsense.

That kind of thinking went out in the era of George Bush.

It's desperately sad

I believe the father was contacted and has chosen not to be bothered to take part, although there's a big question about whether he could legally travel here in the first place

Wet August - but some things are simply too serious to permit a neutral or indifferent response.

Not if you wish to retain any moral credibility.

That someone is advising mothers not to report the sexual abuse of their own children is surely a situation that has to be condemned?

wetaugust, any chance of explaining your last post, preferably leaving out the personal abuse? You really seem to be determined to castigate those who don't agree with you in quite unpleasant terms and you clearly don't like what they have to say. It's not unreasonable to read your requests that they stop as meaning that, well, you want them to stop, and to ask why.

And throughout them all there are posters convinced that social services are stealing babies from perfectly capable parents for adoption

I don't see any posters with those views on here.

I hope you don't think I hold these views as I stated quite categorically in the last thread that I did not hold such views.

It just shows what a witch hunt has developed that I feel I have to re-state this fact.

So who are these posters?

I think perhaps it needs to be recognised as part of this discussion that JH's crusade in this matter could be considered to be at the most basic level led by a personal experience which is well documented in the social care press and elsewhere.

It could be argued therefore that JH is not an independent spectator in this nor reaching a point of view as an independent 'member of parliament'

Which is why I have questioned a number of times about whether he is running families for justice, giving advice to families regarding this matter, attending court, writing articles, posting on mumsnet and posting on his personal blog about this issue when he is in his role as an MP if he is using tax payer's money in anyway to fund this.

Bearing in mind that an top of all of this he is involved in other companies which presumably take up his time as well...

I can see no disclaimer on his blog, twitter or facebook that states that what he posts is his opinion rather than the opinion of the liberal democrat party.

I will be looking into this further Mr Hemming.

My goodness Nenny, you're taking offence at being called 'silly' when it's fair game on here to be called a cunt.

You poor precious little thing. If you can't take the heat.....

Spero - I'm not on trial. I retain my moral credibility quite happily without havving to subscribe to joining you in calling someone a cunt.

But we are going round in ever decreasing circles as the Witchfinder General finds it impossible to get the old hag (me) to agree her guilt. Oh yes, I read some IJ - bring on the ducking stool to cleanse my soul.

I'm fed up with this sterile debate. I'm off to play Grand Theft Auto.

There has never been any indication that the close family want to care for this baby

It might not be a case of "don't want" but a case of "can't".

With many of the entitlements availble in Britian simply not exisiting in Italy, like child tax credits and child benefit, they may be at economic breaking point. In addition they may be in the red energywise given that they are grandparents careing for the two older children full time and have a daugher who suffers from mentally illness.

My late mother in law had bipolar. DH and I are considerable younger than than the grandparents and only have one child to take care of. Trying to manage serious mental ill health here in Italy AND bring up a child that needed to be protected from said illness as much as humanly possible... brought us to our knees. I think it is entirely possibly that her parents said no to kin placement for the baby becuase they simply couldn't deal with any more than they are already dealing with. Especially since their daughter is only in her early 30s. There could still yet be future children that Italian SS will seek to place with them.

Absolutely Carpe of course it may be that they want to but can't